4 ms·

Is that a comeback? From what I've seen, it's a statement of fact. Men do it more. Women still also do it.

by stcredzero 3y ago

wolverine876 3y ago
Certainly some women do it.
- tigen 3y ago
  Women also have better peripheral vision.
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    This is a myth, often mixed with myths around color blindness and color vision. For peripheral vision, it's important to note that only the fovea - a tiny dot at the very center of our vision covering 1.5 degrees field of view - has the ability to resolve details and strong color. The rest is an out-of-focus, low-resolution, monochrome mess: at 6 degrees you're at a quarter visual acuity, and at 30 degrees (1/16th acuity) things start to fall off even faster. Note that our vision is not like looking through camera - you think your peripheral vision has color and detail because your visual cortex fills it in with its representation of what it saw or expects to see. Even if women had more rod cells in their peripheral vision (either from more cells in total or fewer cells in the important fovea), they'd just get slightly higher resolution out-of-focus monochrome. To cure the blurriness, their cornea and lens would need to be vastly different. For color vision, biological males (usually) only have one X chromosome, and mutations to cone cell related genes is "fatal": if it mutates slightly it just offsets color sensitivity, if it mutates too much it may cause a loss of sensitivity to a primary color altogether. Biological females (usually) have two X chromosomes that each contain the necessary genes. If one mutates, it only a affects some cone cells. If it mutates slightly, you get tetrachromacy - sensitivity to a fourth primary color and stronger color perception at the cost of some light sensitivity to the original primary color. If it mutates fatally, it just means lost light sensitivity for that color - not lost color perception. This is not too dissimilar to how we became trichromatic - red and green are very close in the spectrum because one is likely just an old mutation of the other. Biological males and females have differences, but they are rarely "males are better than females at X" or vice versa.
    - stcredzero 3y ago
      Biological males and females have differences, but they are rarely "males are better than females at X" or vice versa. At the upper long tail, biological males are better at basketball and tennis, for just two examples.
      - arghwhat 3y ago
        Biological males are not better at basketball and tennis. Being exceptional at basketball seems to require being tall, and being exceptional at tennis seems to require a strong upper body, and having a greater representation of a gender will increase the likelihood that their outliers are in the set - and highly competitive sports are solely for outliers. Being a male does not make you tall, it makes you somewhat more likely to be tall. But being a male doesn't change that I'd get sore neck talking up to female basketball players like Margo Dydek (218cm) and be absolutely destroyed in a match, or the fact the worlds tallest woman at 247cm would have made the average male look like a child. Being male does not make you strong, but it gives you a slight advantage in growing strong (possibly including higher chance of experiencing a childhood that was more conductive to early muscle and bone growth). But being a male doesn't change that athletic and muscular sportswomen would consider my otherwise decent rather pathetic, and that no amount of dedicating my life to the cause would ever get me near the levels of a peak sportswoman. Greater chance to have been born an outlier, not a benefit to the majority that weren't. Averages are misleading.
        stcredzero 3y ago
        > Biological males are not better at basketball and tennis. Yup, for sure, you're not in a divorced from reality bubble.
        AlexeyBelov 3y ago
        Just FYI: reading your replies in this comment section is exhausting. It's like you try to be unpleasant to interact with.
        3y ago
- arghwhat 3y ago
  Yes, so just like some men do it. The old biogical gender stereotypes of lustful males and "innocent" women are a bit long in the tooth. The biological genders are not that different, with lustful women and "innocent" men just as likely but all forced to fit a single mold.
  - stcredzero 3y ago
    Men and women being held as exactly the same for ideological reasons is just as foolish as Victorian rangers killing all the wolves, because wolves are bad. There are clearly biological differences on average, or in some cases, in an overwhelming majority of cases. But to your point, women certainly aren't fundamentally innocent.
    - arghwhat 3y ago
      Differences in male and female behavior being attributed to biological differences is just as foolish as considering the world flat, because "that's what we know is true". Males and females are known to take on similar activities and exhibit similar behaviors, showing that the stereotypical behaviors were not caused by the underlying biology. But yes, there are certainly biological differences. (Apologies for copying your style of argument, I couldn't help myself.)
      - stcredzero 3y ago
        Differences in male and female behavior being attributed to biological differences is just as foolish as considering the world flat I think you need to look in the mirror for flat-earth-esque attributes there. (Or maybe young earth is a better analogy?) Are you saying all biology citing male-female differences in animals is also false? Or are you saying that human are somehow exempt because of our intelligence? Smells like ideological wishing! (Apologies for copying your style of argument, I couldn't help myself.) You're missing a key point of the analogy here. Left as a self-awareness exercise to the student.
        arghwhat 3y ago

Is that a comeback? From what I've seen, it's a statement of fact. Men do it more. Women still also do it.

wolverine876 3y ago

Certainly some women do it.

tigen 3y ago
Women also have better peripheral vision.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  This is a myth, often mixed with myths around color blindness and color vision. For peripheral vision, it's important to note that only the fovea - a tiny dot at the very center of our vision covering 1.5 degrees field of view - has the ability to resolve details and strong color. The rest is an out-of-focus, low-resolution, monochrome mess: at 6 degrees you're at a quarter visual acuity, and at 30 degrees (1/16th acuity) things start to fall off even faster. Note that our vision is not like looking through camera - you think your peripheral vision has color and detail because your visual cortex fills it in with its representation of what it saw or expects to see. Even if women had more rod cells in their peripheral vision (either from more cells in total or fewer cells in the important fovea), they'd just get slightly higher resolution out-of-focus monochrome. To cure the blurriness, their cornea and lens would need to be vastly different. For color vision, biological males (usually) only have one X chromosome, and mutations to cone cell related genes is "fatal": if it mutates slightly it just offsets color sensitivity, if it mutates too much it may cause a loss of sensitivity to a primary color altogether. Biological females (usually) have two X chromosomes that each contain the necessary genes. If one mutates, it only a affects some cone cells. If it mutates slightly, you get tetrachromacy - sensitivity to a fourth primary color and stronger color perception at the cost of some light sensitivity to the original primary color. If it mutates fatally, it just means lost light sensitivity for that color - not lost color perception. This is not too dissimilar to how we became trichromatic - red and green are very close in the spectrum because one is likely just an old mutation of the other. Biological males and females have differences, but they are rarely "males are better than females at X" or vice versa.
  - stcredzero 3y ago
    Biological males and females have differences, but they are rarely "males are better than females at X" or vice versa. At the upper long tail, biological males are better at basketball and tennis, for just two examples.
    - arghwhat 3y ago
      Biological males are not better at basketball and tennis. Being exceptional at basketball seems to require being tall, and being exceptional at tennis seems to require a strong upper body, and having a greater representation of a gender will increase the likelihood that their outliers are in the set - and highly competitive sports are solely for outliers. Being a male does not make you tall, it makes you somewhat more likely to be tall. But being a male doesn't change that I'd get sore neck talking up to female basketball players like Margo Dydek (218cm) and be absolutely destroyed in a match, or the fact the worlds tallest woman at 247cm would have made the average male look like a child. Being male does not make you strong, but it gives you a slight advantage in growing strong (possibly including higher chance of experiencing a childhood that was more conductive to early muscle and bone growth). But being a male doesn't change that athletic and muscular sportswomen would consider my otherwise decent rather pathetic, and that no amount of dedicating my life to the cause would ever get me near the levels of a peak sportswoman. Greater chance to have been born an outlier, not a benefit to the majority that weren't. Averages are misleading.
      - stcredzero 3y ago
        > Biological males are not better at basketball and tennis. Yup, for sure, you're not in a divorced from reality bubble.
        AlexeyBelov 3y ago
        Just FYI: reading your replies in this comment section is exhausting. It's like you try to be unpleasant to interact with.
      - 3y ago
arghwhat 3y ago
Yes, so just like some men do it. The old biogical gender stereotypes of lustful males and "innocent" women are a bit long in the tooth. The biological genders are not that different, with lustful women and "innocent" men just as likely but all forced to fit a single mold.
- stcredzero 3y ago
  Men and women being held as exactly the same for ideological reasons is just as foolish as Victorian rangers killing all the wolves, because wolves are bad. There are clearly biological differences on average, or in some cases, in an overwhelming majority of cases. But to your point, women certainly aren't fundamentally innocent.
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    Differences in male and female behavior being attributed to biological differences is just as foolish as considering the world flat, because "that's what we know is true". Males and females are known to take on similar activities and exhibit similar behaviors, showing that the stereotypical behaviors were not caused by the underlying biology. But yes, there are certainly biological differences. (Apologies for copying your style of argument, I couldn't help myself.)
    - stcredzero 3y ago
      Differences in male and female behavior being attributed to biological differences is just as foolish as considering the world flat I think you need to look in the mirror for flat-earth-esque attributes there. (Or maybe young earth is a better analogy?) Are you saying all biology citing male-female differences in animals is also false? Or are you saying that human are somehow exempt because of our intelligence? Smells like ideological wishing! (Apologies for copying your style of argument, I couldn't help myself.) You're missing a key point of the analogy here. Left as a self-awareness exercise to the student.
      - arghwhat 3y ago